User talk:Harlequin212121

Welcome from PS2pcGAMER

Hello Harlequin212121 and welcome to Wikipedia!

After seeing one of your contributions, I just thought I'd stop by and say hello. There can be a lot to Wikipedia, so I thought I'd let you know of some important links, such as:

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or you can just ask me on my talk page Alternatively, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome and if there is anything at all I can do for you, just leave me a message. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT The West Wing

The West Wing article has gone through the peer review and featured article candidacy and succeeded. These see alsos were added during this period. There was no objection or mass outcry against them. See also is for related topics that may not fit into the text. I would not feel comfortable mentioning either of these shows in the text, but they are related to the topic at hand. Commander is relevant because almost every review of it compared it to The West Wing and many of its themes and episode plotlines have been similar to The West Wing if not complete copies. Yes, Minister is a humorous take on the same idea as The West Wing. This is not a show that I have seen, but I understand that the show bears similarities to The West Wing, except that it is humourous and focuses on the British government. I am having a bit of trouble understanding what your problem with the articles is. Please let me know. Thanks. — Scm83x ^talk 14:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jackjenn17.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackjenn17.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Meganjackjennwed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Meganjackjennwed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -Shannernanner 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Shannernanner 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that I am not doing so, nor do I think you get to be the one lone voice of that accusation. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the various points I made in my rebuttal to you in the talk section of Boy Meets World? --Harlequin212121 06:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

-Shannernanner 07:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed with your prestigious little warning icon and everything, but this is getting out of hand. I have repeatedly asked you to explain yourself as to why this isn't NPOV and you seem to offer no other explanation but "Stop violating NPOV" and reverting changes. I don't agree with your changes and I also don't think you should be the sole dictator as to my edits being non-neutral, when I say this... you offer no response. When I make plenty of points in refutation in the talk section of Boy Meets World... you offer no response. So, instead of keeping this ridiculous thing going how about you just try to explain yourself? Why is this so difficult? I'm sorry but your thoughts and analyses of how a Boy Meets World page should look are not necessarilly more valid than mine, so explain yourself or I will take further action in trying to get this dispute dealt with in a different manner than you getting high and mighty and acting as if my view is irrelevant--Harlequin212121 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained that your edits violate Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. I have also explained why. I don't desire to argue with you about it. You are reverting other people's helpful edits to insert your commentary, which constitutes original research. Please stop. -Shannernanner 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a mediation, I believe your refusal to discuss or hear any opinion other than yours on this matter has gotten out of hand. --Harlequin212121 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the reasons your edits were out of place on the Boy Meets World talk page. In a series of edits, you reverted the article just to re-insert your commentary, reverting others' helpful edits. According to Wikipedia policy, you may not insert original research or your own point of view, even if it seems obvious to you. All information must be verifiable. -Shannernanner 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I responded on the Wikipedia talk page and you didn't feel the need to respond to this despite ample points I made, you just continued your incessant reverting. Again, you are not qualified to be the sole decider as to whether or not something's in violation of NPOV, the bottom line is I don't trust your judgment and think you have developed a vendetta against that edit. In looking on your discussion page it appears this isn't the first time you've been accused of such an action. The mediation's been requested, if it turns out I'm wrong then I'll drop it, but I truly don't believe I am, and I don't take your judgment soley as valid proof. Since you seem unwilling to further discuss this on the Boy Meets World talk page, Maybe you can tell me the non-NPOV violation of me moving Angela, Jack and Rachel ahead of Mr. Turner and Mr. Williams? Angela, Jack and Rachel were on the show longer and appeared more frequently when they did than the two of them, and since the character order seems to be in the order of the import of the character. Why shouldn't this change be made? Perhaps you can also tell me the NPOV violation concerning me adding Alan's coddling of Eric resulting in Eric's immaturity and doing nothing with his intellect. This was actually the plotline of a couple episodes, this violates NPOV too? The fact of the matter is you didn't even address any of these issues when you made the hasty reversions of my edits, because there is no logical response. You addressed a few things which you took as non-NPOV (and I disagree with) and yet reverted everything. I eagerly await your reply and hope you don't choose to ignore these points as you did on the Boy Meets World talk page.--Harlequin212121 07:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore it. I had already stated why your edits violated policy. The characters are currently not in order of importance (which is POV), but in credits order. The characters which did not stay for the full run should probably be in chronological order; Minkus was the last to be added, and therefore is now at the bottom. There is not an episode which says directly "Alan's coddling Eric resulted in Eric's immaturity," nor does saying "and this is correct" constitute NPOV. I do not have a "vendetta" against your edits, they just do not belong on the article. If you would like to contribute any verifiable information, it is welcome. -Shannernanner 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, the characters aren't in credits order, otherwise William Russ/Alan Matthews would be last, wouldn't he? And Betsy Randle/Amy Matthews would be ahead of Eric. And Danielle Fishel didn't join the main cast until season 2, so she should be after Minkus by your logic. Also, Morgan wasn't around for the full run of the series since she was switched and thus she should moved around too. Except the order is fine the way I have it because chronological order was just something you up and decided now once you realized you didn't have a leg to stand on with regards to Turner and Eli. This is especially obvious considering the fact that the new chronological order thing is only something you did today and thus didn't exist when you first reverted my edits. And, yeah, there is an episode of Boy Meets World that pretty much directly states it, it's called "Security Guy", I suggest you watch it. The wording is my own because this is supposed to be original writing, but that's almost exactly what was said. I've had enough of this, you are not the sole editor of the Boy Meets World page as much as you appear to want to be. Start discussing things in talk, and start getting it through your head that your voice isn't the only one that matters. --Harlequin212121 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not solely my opinion. -Shannernanner 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you'd read on it looks like I'm not alone either. By the way, never threaten me with banning again. You're not an administrator. --Harlequin212121 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template warning message for edits that do violate Wiki policy. Shannernanner didn't threaten you with anything. - Debuskjt 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming I've recieved my "last warning" when he has no authority to ensure that this is my last warning and claiming in no uncertain terms that I WILL be banned from Wikipedia, sounds pretty threatening to me and in that he has no right to do this, I think my reaction is justified. --Harlequin212121 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannernanner and you are both after the same thing -- to make a good and better article at Boy Meets World. I think it might not be a bad idea for you both to take a deep breath, remember to be civil, and to assume that both of you are acting in good faith for that common goal. You two might disagree, but fundementally you are on the same side. I hope that I've laid some groundwork where you two can start to work together on this and come to an acceptable compromise. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing speedy tag on a nonsense article

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Joey Epstein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to edit the page and clean it up somewhat, you just hadn't given me the chance yet... --Harlequin212121 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Beast Machines Rank

All Beast Machines characters excepot Botanica and the Diagnostic Drone have ranks, as it's on their tech specs. user:mathewignash

License tagging for Image:Jack Deveraux.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack Deveraux.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Jennifer Deveraux.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jennifer Deveraux.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jack_Deveraux.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack_Deveraux.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? The photo was used for publicity on NBC.com, why on Earth would that not be fair use? Also, considering it is a picture of the person in question, I can't fathom how it wouldn't be fairly necessary to the article. Can you explain this in a way that does not sound like a robot?--Harlequin212121 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Harlequin212121, yeah, I get what you mean about not adding EJ and Sami to the top of the Supercouples today section of the Supercouple article, since they are still a new potential couple at this point and they aren't an official romantic couple at this point yet.

User: Perfecttlovee took Lucas and Sami off of the top of the Supercouples today section and added EJ and Sami there instead. Well, I added Lucas and Sami back at the top there, leaving EJ and Sami up there as well, feeling that it would/will help this back-and-forth of adding EJ and Sami and taking EJ and Sami off of that part that is going on between newbie Wikipedian editors. But I feel that since EJ and Sami are already mentioned below in the Supercouples today section, they don't need to be mentioned beside Lucas and Sami at the top, which is why I typed that bottom part up about a character being popular within two couples, in which also mentions EJ and Sami. I just wanted to let you know that I understand your concern on the EJ and Sami matter as to not being listed at the top of the Supercouples today section. Flyer22 18:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for the incovenience on the supercouple page I understand what your saying by not putting Sami and EJ on top of todays supercouple since they've never been an official couple and are new. Sorry I didn't mean to cause anything because of it.User: Perfecttlovee

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. bibliotheque (Talk) 05:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Actually, my edit was extremely constructive in that Aremid has been continuously putting false birthdates for Days of our Lives characters and I've had to be reverting them. You should take more care in what you're reverting, because it could be you making the mistake and not the person who's post you're reverting as it was in this scenario. --Harlequin212121 01:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Dates in Harry Potter articles

Fictional characters aren't born...they are fictional. Read wiki policy on fiction and fictional characters. Dates of a fictional character's birth can be mentioned in a reference in the article, but not as you have done which pretends, in an in-universe style, that the character is actually alive. Ccrashh 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the following: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), specifically the section entitled "Perspective" in which it says:

The second approach treats the fiction as if it were real, and describes it from the perspective of the people and characters of the fictional universe. Topics covered may include:

* the birth and death dates of fictional characters;

* a plot synopsis framed as biography;

* performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices;

* exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations; and

* background information on fictional creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

This is often referred to as an in-universe perspective. Many non-Wikimedia wikis and independent fan-maintained websites take this approach, but it is not considered encyclopedic.

Thanks. Ccrashh 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Deveraux Page

Do not revert the page just because you feel like it. The page is standardized and within the Wikipedia Soap Project guidelines. Trivia sections and spoilers are discouraged especially when a "spoiler" is pure rumour on the part of wishful thinking fans. Do not put unverifiable content in articles including birthdates that happened before a show was on the air. Continued violation of the article in question will result in a formal warning.IrishLass0128 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in articles

Please remember that not everyone in the country sees a show at the same time. Do not put spoilers (anything that has not aired in all time zones in the US) before everyone has a chance to see a program. Thank you for your enthusiasm, but please be patient. IrishLass0128 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jennifer Deveraux.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jennifer Deveraux.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Boy Meets World

Template:Boy Meets World has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:RattrapBW.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:RattrapBW.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack Deveraux.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Deveraux.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lawrence Alamain for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lawrence Alamain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Alamain until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eleanor Bartlet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eleanor Bartlet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Bartlet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

User:Namiba 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]